Gainda
Ram Vs. M.C.D [1994] INSC 162 (4 March 1994)

Ahmadi,
A.M. (J) Ahmadi, A.M. (J) Sahai, R.M. (J) Venkatachala N. (J)

CITATION:
1994 SCC (5) 52

ACT:

HEAD NOTE:

ORDER

1. The
IA Nos. 19, 29 and 30 taken on board.

2. The
main grievance of the hawkers/squatters is that the MCD Committee is allocating
space on proximity to residence basis which rendered their right to allocation
at the place where they were trading redundant. It must be clarified that it
may not be possible for MCD to accommodate all the claimants in one single zone
if the total available space therein is insufficient. In that case some of the
claimants will have to be dislodged. This depends on the identification done by
the MCD Committee on the criteria approved earlier as per the Scheme. The
grievance that even people who have been trading in a given zone for long
number of years are not accommodated on the basis of their seniority i.e.
length of presence, and are asked to move out on the residence-proximity
criteria is somewhat genuine.

We,
therefore, think that the proper course to adopt is to obtain from them their
preferences in regard to zones where they would like to be accommodated.
Thereafter, on the basis of their seniority as may be established before the
Committee they may, as far as possible, be accommodated on the basis of their
preference in the respective zones. This does not, however, mean that the total
number of slots in the zone would have to be increased on the basis of
preference but they would have to be accommodated in the available slots on the
basis of their preference having regard to their seniority in that zone. If it
is not possible to accommodate all on the basis of their preferences and it
becomes imperative to shift them to other zones, the MCD Committee would be
free to do so. However, the endeavour should be to try to accommodate them on
the basis of their preference as far as possible. Now in order to save time we
direct the MCD to once again put up the list in the respective zones and give
one copy thereof to Mr P.H. Parekh, as agreed by counsel, so that there is no
difficulty about the copies put up at zones not being legible or otherwise. Mr Maheshwari
states that he will first give the approved list in regard to the city zones
and thereafter the other zones. We would, therefore, direct that as soon as the
list is given within two weeks thereafter the persons whose claims have been
approved may send their preferences to enable the MCD to accommodate the
approved persons to the extent possible in the zones of their choice depending
on the length of their presence in their zone. After the 54 preferences are
received within two weeks from today, the MCD will complete the exercise and
till then the status quo order earlier made will continue. After the exercise
is completed, the MCD will be entitled to implement the outcome of their
exercise and those who cannot be accommodated in a given zone and are
accommodated in another zone will be shifted to the zone in which they are
accommodated.

3. The
IAs will stand disposed of accordingly.

4. Mr
S.P. Pandey states that insofar as his IA is concerned the claim has been
disposed of on the ground that it was not received although he has a receipt
evidencing the receipt thereof. He may show the same to Mr Maheshwari and
satisfy him about the receipt thereof. On such satisfaction, the MCD may
examine the claim.